Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask a question of the chairman. Is the gentleman saying we cannot take care of all the self-determination tribes? In other words, the problem is we have got so many people who signed up to do self-determination, that we cannot take care of all of them? Is that the problem?

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the other problem with this is the tribes were not consulted before we made this decision. I am very upset that the administration in its budget, I completely concur with the chairman, completely punted on this issue. They did not have any money to address this or not very much. We tried to correct this, but, I think, unfortunately, what we are going to do here if we do not accept the gentleman's amendment is to penalize those people who have not entered into self-determination agreements, and then punish those that have. I think that will be unfortunate. Maybe we can work this out between now and the conference.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker), is the point the gentleman is trying to make here that a number of tribes have entered into self-determination contracts with the Indian Health Service, and the Indian Health Service has failed to live up to its obligations to fund these tribes that have taken on self-determination, and the unfortunate consequence of what the chairman is trying to do, and I think he was trying to do something to benefit all the tribes, is that we then do not live up to the commitments that we made to those people who decided that they wanted to go the route of self-determination? So are we penalizing them and rewarding people who are not willing to go the route of self- determination? Is that basically the argument?

Mr. DICKS. Absolutely.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. It has been carefully crafted by the gentleman from Ohio, by the gentleman from Colorado, by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and by the gentlewoman from Texas. I would like to say that she has been a real leader and concerned about the fossil energy program. This will benefit that program. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for whatever comments she would like to make. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to vote. We have had a very good and spirited debate.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not think they did anything. They just did not deal with the issue.

Mr. DICKS. Is the gentleman telling me OMB has not figured out which is the House and which is the Senate?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me read this. It says this in a letter to Mr. Yates on July 20. ``For example, one tribe would see its contract support payment reduced by $949,000, or 39 percent, between FY 98 and FY 99. Such unanticipated reduction would adversely affect health care delivery among these tribes by requiring them to decrease important administrative support staff and functions or to divert funding for health care services to support activities that were formally funded by the contract support costs.'' This is a letter from Donna Shalala.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman, for this motion to instruct. Having served on the Subcommittee on National Security for 20 years, one of the things that I remember most vividly was being in the Gulf with General Schwarzkopf and having him tell me how worried he was about the fact that if the enemy had had accurate SCUDs, we had 500,000 troops out there deployed that would have been vulnerable. We had a terribly difficult time finding those launchers. In fact, the Iraqis used very sophisticated denial and deception. I believe as far as defense priorities go, there is no higher priority than getting to theater missile defense. I am very much aware of what the Senate did, taking money out of these crucial programs and then using it for something that is highly speculative, a paper program at best. I urge the House to adopt this, and I urge our conferees to go in there and do the very best they can. As an appropriator we will stay with them on this because this would be a terrible mistake. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on the issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object. We have to get to a vote on this. We have gone on and on and on. Can we not vote on this amendment, please?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. We will agree to it.

Mr. DICKS. At this juncture. Because this would be one of the rare times when somebody does not want to have a wildlife refuge in their district.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield further, so they can go ahead and do the planning?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Ohio again for his great cooperation and support on a whole host of issues that are beneficial to the Pacific Northwest, the region of the country that I have the honor of representing. I also want to congratulate the staff. This staff is one of the very best. I appreciate the fact that they work with all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. That is a good standard. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to say a few words about the gentleman from Illinois. We have had a few differences of opinion over the years. The gentleman from Wisconsin talks about his great debating skills going back to the days of Eddie Boland. I had the misfortune at that time to be the assistant for Senator Magnuson of the other body at the time who was the great author of the SST. So the gentleman from Illinois' great eloquence cost us dearly because ultimately he won. But I will say this. The day after that great victory for the gentleman from Illinois and Senator Proxmire from the gentleman from Wisconsin's home State, a senior member of the Boeing Company came in and said, ``Those two guys saved the company because if we had built the SST, we would have been in deep trouble.'' So the gentleman's judgment was good. It was correct, and I have learned a great deal from him. Our styles are probably, some people would say, completely different. But I would say to a young political science student, if you want to have a history of somebody who has been what I consider the best subcommittee chairman I have ever seen in this House, it was the gentleman from Illinois. He was fair to every witness that came before our committee and respected the individuals that came before the committee and treated them with dignity. Also he had tremendous passion and concern for the issues, such as the National Endowment for the Arts. He and I have been on this floor defending the Endowment over the last 20 years. What has happened is we would have the greatest hearings in our committee on the Endowment, and one day I got a call from the gentleman from Illinois. He said, ``I need you to cover me this afternoon on the hearing for the Endowment for the Arts.'' He forgot to tell me it was the opposition to the Endowment for the Arts. So I had to come in and be the acting subcommittee chairman. There were quite a list of very interesting individuals. The gentleman was good at handing things off when he did not particularly want to have to listen to all these people who were in opposition. But the main thing is that I think he has left behind on our committee a whole series of members who have had the ability to see him and how he handles situations, and I think it has built a camaraderie on the Interior subcommittee. I agree with our chairman, this is a committee where we care about the culture of our country, we care about the natural resources, we care about the tribes, and the gentleman from Illinois has been the real glue on our committee. We are going to miss him. He has done a great job for the country and a great job for the Interior subcommittee.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).